Author
Topic: So what was the concelebration? (Read 10819 times)

Hey I've been reading some traditionalist articles, most of them very critical of Patriarch Bartholomew, but also against other Patriarchs and leaders of World Orthodoxy.

I am also astonished to see the stricking similarities between the vocabulary and criticisms of Orthodox traditionalists and Latin traditionalists

What I don't understand is that those articles claim that Patriarch Bartholomew concelebrated the Liturgy with Latin Pope John Paul II in 1987 and 1995, that Patriarch Ilia from Georgia concelebrated with "monophysite" Patriarch Karekin II of Armenia, that Patriarch Teoctist concelebrated with JPII in Bucharest and Rome, that the Macedonian Orthodox Church clergy concelebrate the liturgy with "uniate" and latin clergy, etc.

Isn't this an exageration? What do they call "concelebration"? To what ceremony do they refer when they say that HH Bartholomew concelebrated with JPII???

Constantinople, Antioch, etc. openly commune monophysites on the grass roots level (I've witnessed this at both Antiochian parishes I've been to, and have read the texts online that authorize this practice). The canons forbid "Prayer Services" with heretics, which most Orthodox hierarchs now do. While the traditionalists can sometimes get way too polemical, their point is valid: things have gone too far in seeking some kind of false communion. The OCA (via encyclical) reevaluated it's participation in the Ecumenical movement a couple decades ago; it's time for all Orthodox Churches to do so again (except groups like ROCA, of course, who have already taken a firm stance against ecumenism)

As to the concelebration charge, I'd suggest looking around Orthodoxinfo.com for something about it.

Constantinople, Antioch, etc. openly commune monophysites on the grass roots level (I've witnessed this at both Antiochian parishes I've been to, and have read the texts online that authorize this practice).

I didn't know they communed monophysites, which is certainly wrong. I do know of their communing Oriental Orthodox under certain circumstances, though.

Constantinople, Antioch, etc. openly commune monophysites on the grass roots level (I've witnessed this at both Antiochian parishes I've been to, and have read the texts online that authorize this practice). The canons forbid "Prayer Services" with heretics, which most Orthodox hierarchs now do. While the traditionalists can sometimes get way too polemical, their point is valid: things have gone too far in seeking some kind of false communion. The OCA (via encyclical) reevaluated it's participation in the Ecumenical movement a couple decades ago; it's time for all Orthodox Churches to do so again (except groups like ROCA, of course, who have already taken a firm stance against ecumenism)

As to the concelebration charge, I'd suggest looking around Orthodoxinfo.com for something about it.

Dear Neo Tobiah,

I think that you are overgeneralizing and you are not being specific with your terms.

First of all, what canons are you referring to when you say that "the canons" forbid prayer services with heretics?

Second of all, what is a heretic? Are Roman Catholics heretics? They wouldn't be according to St. Basil the Great because they don't deny the Trinity--St. Basil says a heretic is one who denies the Trinity, a schismatic is one who has separated from the Church and may be teaching a slight error, and an unlawful assembly is one that is operating without a Bishop or against its bishop.

I think nowadays the meaning of heretic has changed, yet people do not note that when they go back and read canons that were written in the 3rd 4th and 5th centuries. Heretic is a technical term, not simply anyone holding a different belief from the Orthodox. When the canons were written heretic meant a Trinity-denier, not someone holding some other, lesser false belief.

[First of all, what canons are you referring to when you say that "the canons" forbid prayer services with heretics]

Probably -

III Council of Constantinople: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman, let him be excommunicated.” Council of Laodicea: “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Pray with heretics. Sometimes the circumstances are unfortunate, making such prayers a "lesser evil" but necessary (e.g., joint prayer services after 9/11), but then sometimes Orthodox hierarchs go way farther than could possibly be reasonable, such as allowing visiting heterodox use Orthodox altars, praying with heterodox hierarchs when they travel around the world, etc. I know of few Patriarchs that don't do this kind of stuff. Even Churches that use to be conservative like Serbia have done this in past decades. I'm not saying that these hierarchs are non-Orthodox, but most have certainly gone too far. I don't even want to think about some of the practices I've heard about in American Churches.

Why? Did the heterodox stop skipping round the globe in planes? If they're still doing so, then it's theorhetically possible on any given day that something it could be happening. I'm not saying that it is likely to happen (there probably aren't more than a few dozen examples from the past decades of it happening), but it would certainly be a far greater exaggeration to say that it couldn't happen. They already meet in prayers (sometimes with buddhists, et al. present), what would prevent them, from a technical perspective, from having communion together?

Mor Ephrem

Quote

I didn't know they communed monophysites, which is certainly wrong. I do know of their communing Oriental Orthodox under certain circumstances, though.

I'm unsure what distinction you are making between "Oriental Orthodox" and monophysites? WHO exactly do you consider to be the monophysites? Regarding circumstances, I'm unsure how it is elsewhere, but I know that in the area I'm at, the Antiochian Priests will commune them if the people are properly prepared like any Orthodox Christian. (this isn't based on rumors, I've discussed this with the Priests who do this as I've struggled with this issue)

anastasios

Quote

I think that you are overgeneralizing and you are not being specific with your terms.

True enough. I apologize.

Quote

First of all, what canons are you referring to when you say that "the canons" forbid prayer services with heretics?

The 45th and 65th Canons of the Apostles, the 33rd Canon of the Council of Laodicea (Also see post above)

Quote

Second of all, what is a heretic? Are Roman Catholics heretics?

Obviously they are.

Quote

They wouldn't be according to St. Basil the Great because they don't deny the Trinity --St. Basil says a heretic is one who denies the Trinity, a schismatic is one who has separated from the Church and may be teaching a slight error, and an unlawful assembly is one that is operating without a Bishop or against its bishop.

1. It's your position that the only "heretics" that have ever been were the ones that denied or distorted the Trinity in some fashion?

2. You think the RCC is only "slightly in error"?

Quote

I think nowadays the meaning of heretic has changed, yet people do not note that when they go back and read canons that were written in the 3rd 4th and 5th centuries. Heretic is a technical term, not simply anyone holding a different belief from the Orthodox. When the canons were written heretic meant a Trinity-denier, not someone holding some other, lesser false belief.

Heretics were mentioned three centuries before by Paul, and it continued to be mentioned in every century after. The idea that "heresy" only talks about the Trinity is, IMO, a truly mind-boggling innovation. Is this what they teach you at seminary these days? Or did you come up with this all on your own?

« Last Edit: January 30, 2003, 12:48:38 AM by Neo Tobiah »

Logged

Economan

Jude,What authoritative, conciliar decision accepted by all Orthodox Churches regards the Catholic Church as heretical? The Pope (or any Catholic bishop) isn't commemorated by World Orthodoxy, but how do you assume that anyone that isn't is a heretic?

Neo Tobiah, do you have any evidence that can such as reports or photographs that support what you say? I hear this from some Orthodox sometimes but all the evidence seems to be heresay or from indirect sources.

Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.

jude

Many Orthodox hierarchs would warn their spiritual children that any teaching--like my goofy proposition on the ordination of women to the priesthood--which is in opposition to the dogma, doctrine, or polity of the Orthodox Faith is, in and of itself and by consensus, heretical, such as papal infallibility or the universal sovereignity of the Pope of Rome.

Some hierarchs would believe that those who adhere to a heretical teaching are heretics, while others, while recognizing a belief to be heretical, would not automatically decree that those who adhered to it were heretics.

First of all, thank you to Orthodoc and Jude for actually posting the canons. I appreciate it when we have the text before us.

I will make a distinction so that everyone knows where I'm coming from.

*My* position is that heretics are people who deny the tenents of Christianity: the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. *My* position is that Roman Catholics are not heretics (but many modern Episcopalians are.)

At St. Vladimir's, we are most definitively taught that Roman Catholics are *not* heretics. Their beliefs do not fit into the category of Trinity or Incarnation denying. They are in error on several issues but NOT at the level of say the Arians. We are taught that there are degrees of separation from the Church, and a Roman Catholic is definitely closer to Orthodoxy than a Voodooist! However, we *are* taught that Roman Catholics are in error to the extent that there can be no eucharistic concelebration or sharing of mysteries.

Back to *my* position: I think it's great when at events such as the Orientale Lumen conference, Archbishop Vsevolod and Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Catholic bishops celebrated a Moleben to the Holy Spirit. How can that be wrong?? I mean what was the intent of the canons mentioned above: I'd say to keep people from rushing into error. When the Orthodox Church will join in prayer with Roman Catholics to the Holy Spirit, but will not concelebrate Eucharist with them, I think it sets a clear message: we welcome you as brothers but we welcome you to join us in the next step: Orthodoxy. It is a good witness, in my opinion.

As far as accusing my ideas or what I was taught at St. Vladimir's as being an "innovation" I suggest you actually read St. Basil's distinction for yourself:

"As to the question concerning the Puritans the custom of every country is to be observed, since they who have discussed this point are of various sentiments. The [baptism] of the Pepuzenes I make no account of, and I wonder that Dionysius the canonist was of another mind. The ancients speak of heresies, which entirely break men off, and make them aliens from the faith. Such are the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites and Pepuzenes, who sin against the Holy Ghost, who baptize into the Father, Son and Montanus, or Priscilla. Schisms are caused by ecclesiastical disputes, and for causes that are not incurable, and for differences concerning penance. The Puritans are such schismatics. The ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and Hydroparastatae, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation; because they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have broken the succession. They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore they ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by laymen. Because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their baptism] be allowed: but not that of the Encratites; for they have altered their baptism, to make themselves incapable of being received by the Church. Yet custom and the Fathers, that is bishops, who have the administration, must be followed; for I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved; while I would raise fears in them concerning their baptism. We are not to allow their baptism, because they allow ours, but strictly to observe the canons. But let none be received without unction. When we received Zois and Saturninus to the Episcopal chair, we made, as it were, a canon to receive those in communion with them."

--First Canonical Epistle of St. Basil

I posted the whole thing to show that when he says heretics, who does he include? The Marcionites who believed in two Gods, the Manicheans who were not even Christians but did believe that Jesus was part of their pantheon of deities, the Encratites, etc.

I noted upon doing more research that St. Mark of Ephesus called Roman Catholics not only schismatics but heretics, so I can see by his time he was thinking more in line with your thoughts. I still maintain that it would be better to return to the apostolic use of the terms "heretic" "scismatic" and "unlawful assembly".

I'm unsure what distinction you are making between "Oriental Orthodox" and monophysites? WHO exactly do you consider to be the monophysites?

The distinction I'm making is that the Oriental Orthodox are not, and were never, monophysites. The monophysite heresy basically says that the human nature of Christ was overshadowed, swallowed up, etc. by the divine nature of Christ. This is clearly wrong, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches never taught this.

As for whom I would consider to be monophysites, I am not sure. I am not sure if there are any genuine monophysites around today. But I do know one thing: we were never it.

Hypo-Ortho

The pope and the patriarch of Constantinople took the first part of a Mass (readings, intercessions) together in St Peter’s Basilica in 1995 but did not concelebrate the Eucharist.

Serge, with all due respect for your "patriarchal" status here, I think this is hair-splitting. The first part of the Mass, i.e., the Mass of the Catechumens or the "Liturgy of the Word," is, none the less, an indispensable part of the Eucharistic service of the Roman Catholic Church. And Patriarch Bartholomew *did* concelebrate this part of the Mass with John Paul II. While he did *not* participate actively in the second part of the Mass, i.e., the Mass of the Faithful or the "Liturgy of the Eucharist," he did actively prepare for it with the Pope by his concelebration of the Mass of the Catechumens.

The distinction I'm making is that the Oriental Orthodox are not, and were never, monophysites. The monophysite heresy basically says that the human nature of Christ was overshadowed, swallowed up, etc. by the divine nature of Christ. This is clearly wrong, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches never taught this.

Why then can't we, in your opinion, get together? It would be truly sad if Rome reconciled with Oriental Orthodox, and "Greek" Orthodox did not. That's not a good scenario at all. If the EP really wants to do something special he should be visiting and talking to the Orientals instead of Rome.

Why then can't we, in your opinion, get together? It would be truly sad if Rome reconciled with Oriental Orthodox, and "Greek" Orthodox did not. That's not a good scenario at all. If the EP really wants to do something special he should be visiting and talking to the Orientals instead of Rome.

Serge, with all due respect for your "patriarchal" status here, I think this is hair-splitting. The first part of the Mass, i.e., the Mass of the Catechumens or the "Liturgy of the Word," is, none the less, an indispensable part of the Eucharistic service of the Roman Catholic Church. And Patriarch Bartholomew *did* concelebrate this part of the Mass with John Paul II. While he did *not* participate actively in the second part of the Mass, i.e., the Mass of the Faithful or the "Liturgy of the Eucharist," he did actively prepare for it with the Pope by his concelebration of the Mass of the Catechumens.

I find myself in agreement with Hypo-Orthodox here (with no disrespect intended towards Patriarch Serge . Where we pray together is where we agree together. Do we agree with the Roman Catholics right on up to and through the Creed? Not only has Patriarch Bartholomew concelebrated the Mass of the Catechumens with Pope John Paul II, but hasn't the Romanian Patriarch also recently done the same in his last visit to Rome?

Neo-Tobias wrote:

Quote

I'm unsure what distinction you are making between "Oriental Orthodox" and monophysites? WHO exactly do you consider to be the monophysites?

I think the distinction being made here is on whether the Oriental Orthodox are actually monophysites. Father John Romanides wrote some articles on this topic, which were very interesting. Regardless of how one views the Oriental Orthodox, the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have FAR more in common and have higher prospects of working out their differences than between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics IMO.

Economan wrote:

Quote

What authoritative, conciliar decision accepted by all Orthodox Churches regards the Catholic Church as heretical? The Pope (or any Catholic bishop) isn't commemorated by World Orthodoxy, but how do you assume that anyone that isn't is a heretic?

IIRC, there are some conciliar rulings to that effect. 1) The 8th Ecumenical Council (879 AD) anathematized adding to the N-C Creed.2) A Council held under the presidency of Patriarch Gregory of Cyprus anathematized certain nuances of the filioque that were more compatible with Roman Catholic teaching rather than Orthodoxy. Remember this occurred around the time of Lyons.3) During the St. Gregory Palamas versus Barlaam the Calabrian controversy, a series of Synods were held that definitively sided with Palamite theology and rejected Barlaamite teaching (which has been viewed as more akin to the-then contemporary Western teaching)4) The Sigililion of 1586 AD, signed by 3 Patriarchs which anathematized the teachings about: a) Indulgences b) Purgatory c) Papal Supremacy d) Sprinkling instead of the 3 immersions in Baptism e) The newly-promulgated Papal paschalion f) The filioque doctrine5) Saints in the Church have defined Roman Catholicism as heresy -- Saints such as Mark of Ephesus and Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain6) The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1848 also placed certain Roman Catholic teachings in the category of heretical

Anastasios wrote:

Quote

Second of all, what is a heretic? Are Roman Catholics heretics? They wouldn't be according to St. Basil the Great because they don't deny the Trinity--St. Basil says a heretic is one who denies the Trinity, a schismatic is one who has separated from the Church and may be teaching a slight error, and an unlawful assembly is one that is operating without a Bishop or against its bishop.

I'm not sure what historical precedent that this has... For example, Seventh-Day Adventists have a perfectly "orthodox" view of the Trinity in terms of its Western expression. Ditto for the Incarnation. Yet, their ecclesiology and sacramentology is riddled with false teaching. With your definition above, how would you deem Seventh-Day Adventists? Baptists? Presbyterians? All of these groups hold conventional Western views of the Trinity/Incarnation (as Roman Catholicism). Would these groups then not be considered "heretical" by these standards?

My Own Comments on Ecumenism:

IMO, it's not just concelebration of the Liturgy of the Catechumens with Pope John Paul II, or the flirtatious use of "sister churches" that concerns me (which is of concern). We can Pope John Paul II for the 2 Assisi World Religions "pow-wow." But weren't Orthodox hierarchs of just about every jurisdiction (with the exception of a few) represented at these events--joining in the ecumenical campfire? We can criticize Pope John Paul II for kissing the Muslim Qu'ran a few years ago--but what about the predecessor of the current Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria stating that Mohammed was an "apostle" and "prophet"? Is that any better? It seems like this type of feel-good/unite-all-religions-into-one-soup is a fervour that is spreading throughout the whole religious sphere--including Orthodox

It seems like this type of feel-good/unite-all-religions-into-one-soup is a fervour that is spreading throughout the whole religious sphere--including Orthodox

In Christ,Stephen

Good point Stephen. There is too much of this feel-good/unite-all gumbya garbage going on these days. When will we realize that not all religions are equal, that some are just plain false? The disease of our time is wanting to get along with everyone.

Hypo-Ortho

gbmtmas<<5) Saints in the Church have defined Roman Catholicism as heresy -- Saints such as Mark of Ephesus and Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain>>

And let's not forget that great luminary of the modern Serbian Church, St. Justin Popovich, who was very explicit on the matter. And the late Metropolitan Philaret, of blessed memory, of the ROCOR, as well. Did St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, the Wonderworker and Fool-for-Christ, have words to offer on this subject?

I wonder what St. Alexis [Toth] of Wilkes-Barre and Minneapolis, Confessor and Defender of Orthodoxy in America, glorified in our own time by the Orthodox Church in America, would say concerning Roman Catholicism today. And have we forgotten the Roman errors that had to be specifically recanted by converts to Holy Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism in the Hapgood formulary before the new, watered-down "Rite of Reception of Converts" was officially adopted by the OCA?

The 8th Ecumenical Council (879 AD) anathematized adding to the N-C Creed.

Doesn’t Eastern Orthodoxy count only seven?

Quote

There has been a lot more favorable ecumenical relations between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

Locally the Russian Church (Moscow Patriarchate) communes Copts.

Quote

Regardless of how one views the Oriental Orthodox, the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have FAR more in common and have higher prospects of working out their differences than between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics IMO.

Probably true.

Quote

There is too much of this feel-good/unite-all gumbya garbage going on these days. When will we realize that not all religions are equal, that some are just plain false? The disease of our time is wanting to get along with everyone.

Well, there’s condescending, watered-down liberal ecumenism — like the merging we see of the mainline Prots, the Luthepiscomethoreformunitebyterians — but there’s also the ecumenism of the saints (see quotation from Fr Lev Gillet on my Faith page) and of people of goodwill today. Witness prolife.

Getting along at the expense of truth is the weakness of our Anglo-American culture, particularly the middle class — it’s how many of us were socialized. Charity derailed.

Quote

For example, Seventh-Day Adventists have a perfectly "orthodox" view of the Trinity in terms of its Western expression. Ditto for the Incarnation. Yet, their ecclesiology and sacramentology is riddled with false teaching. With your definition above, how would you deem Seventh-Day Adventists? Baptists? Presbyterians? All of these groups hold conventional Western views of the Trinity/Incarnation (as Roman Catholicism). Would these groups then not be considered "heretical" by these standards?

Sounds like they’re Protestants — not apostolic but Christian.

Quote

Saints in the Church have defined Roman Catholicism as heresy

Saints individually don’t define dogma.

Quote

I wonder what St. Alexis [Toth] of Wilkes-Barre and Minneapolis, Confessor and Defender of Orthodoxy in America, glorified in our own time by the Orthodox Church in America, would say concerning Roman Catholicism today.

The Toth story wasn’t so much about dogma as persecution by another ethnic group in America. (He was a Catholic seminary professor in the old country — he obviously didn’t have a problem with the Pope then.) He took his marbles and went somewhere else — understandably. As for RCism today, I dare say both sides would be sickened by the Novus Ordo.

Quote

the Roman errors that had to be specifically recanted by converts to Holy Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism

I can agree in as much as the system criticized therein historically has been consistently unfair to the Christian East.

What I am about to respond to would probably make a bunch of good threads, but I'll try to address them briefly here, and if anyone's interested enough, perhaps we can start separate conversations about some of these topics.

Why then can't we, in your opinion, get together? It would be truly sad if Rome reconciled with Oriental Orthodox, and "Greek" Orthodox did not. That's not a good scenario at all. If the EP really wants to do something special he should be visiting and talking to the Orientals instead of Rome.

In my opinion, the theological differences are pretty much clarified. The Oriental Orthodox Churches and their people are pretty clear now that the teachings of the Byzantine Orthodox on the natures of Christ are basically what they themselves have believed, but expressed differently. To a slightly lesser extent, this is true of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and their people (I have a feeling that the common man probably feels this way, and so do a good part of the clergy, although there are those in the canonical, "semi-canonical", or non-canonical groups who would beg to differ, and it is often these that I've seen represented on the 'net). Other than the Christology, there really isn't any difference in our theology and yours (which cannot really be said about post-schism Rome).

At any rate, at this point in time, there are agreements between the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch for intercommunion under particular conditions. In addition, there are other Churches which do similar things informally (Serge's example of the MP communing Coptic Orthodox, for example). There are other grassroots-level initiatives that are taking place as well.

I think that the main issue now is the enumeration of the Ecumenical Councils. We say there were three; you say there were seven. I personally don't understand why, from the EO point of view, councils four through seven have to be accepted by the OO when it could just as easily be arranged so that those councils are recognised as orthodox but local, and perhaps have a fourth Ecumenical Council as a reunion council. But I'm a dreamer, I guess. I suppose the OO Churches might have no problem signing on to the other councils of the Eastern Orthodox, and accepting them as ecumenical after the fact, but in my opinion, Chalcedon's pronouncements would have to be amended so that Cyrillian Christology is also affirmed in the definition of the natures of Christ in order for this to happen. Chalcedon would be preserved (for the EO), and "corrected" (for the OO), without any change in the faith.

But I am just a layman.

I think the distinction being made here is on whether the Oriental Orthodox are actually monophysites. Father John Romanides wrote some articles on this topic, which were very interesting. Regardless of how one views the Oriental Orthodox, the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have FAR more in common and have higher prospects of working out their differences than between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics IMO.

You are right. As I said above, I think it's basically the Christology issue and the enumeration of the councils that keeps us apart. Other than that, there has been no "deviation" (for lack of a better word) on either of our parts from the Orthodox faith. With regard to Rome, it is harder to say that, especially when taking into account post-schism developments.

Edit: are those articles by Father John Romanides online somewhere? I'd like to read them if they are.

Orthodoc's latest post brings up a question I've had for a while. We say that no one should add to the Creed, but is there a qualification to this? I mean, the Second Ecumenical Council, if I'm not mistaken, added some stuff to the Creed (an extension of the clause on the Holy Spirit). Are there ever any circumstances in which the Creed can be altered, provided that the proper doctrines are upheld? We protest the Roman Church's Filioque clause, but what if a Church in its Liturgies added something rather unobjectionable to the Creed (for example, adding the title Theotokos to the part in the Creed referring to the Virgin Mary)? What are the qualifications, if any, to the question of adding to the Creed?

About the heresies, It was my understanding that the Roman Church is not heretical in itself, but schismatic because of the reasons you listed and because it corrupted the Orthodox faith with innovations.

Priests tell me that the most dangerous things, even graver than the ones which existed previously (Papal supremacy, filioque, etc) in the RC, are those which appeared in modern times and which created an abyss between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church, and that the RC is now closer to Protestantism. I don0t know how acurate is this.

About Protestantism, I have seen that many orthodox in the USA are quite benevolent with Protestantism, for getting that they hold graver errors than the RC.

The First Assisi prayer meeting was a wonderful event. Many religions gathered together, and in the midst of that, the Pope told them that peace could only come through Christ. A great witnessing opportunity.

The second Assisi meeting seemed to be much more political and less substantial things were said. Of course the poor Pope was shaking from his Parkinson's so bad that it was hard to understand him.

The Pope kissing the Koran was just plain wrong, but when I was in India once I had a Koran literally shoved in my face by a pious old Muslim woman who said "Christianity and Islam are just so close." I can see how a Koran could get shoved in someone's face and their natural reaction (after kissing Gospel books so long) would be to just kiss it. Of course, I don't recall if in the photo JP II is holding it himself. If he was, then that is just plain stupid.

As far as "half celebrating" a Mass: I say what happened in 1995 was GREAT! They did not celebrate Eucharist together out of respect for the division between the two Churches, BUT they read the scriptures together, etc.--Orthodox and Catholics are not divided on the truth of scripture, so I am all for praying that together.

In Christ,

anastasios(Die Hard Ecumenist between Catholics and Orthodox. Not between anyone else, though.)

In my opinion, the theological differences are pretty much clarified. The Oriental Orthodox Churches and their people are pretty clear now that the teachings of the Byzantine Orthodox on the natures of Christ are basically what they themselves have believed, but expressed differently.

I'm not sure that Saint Euphemia (July 11) would agree with you on this . Perhaps the terms used by the OOC were not specific enough to exclude misuse by heretics as this was certainly an issue in determining the language of the Nicene Creed and later in condemning the addition of the "Filioque".

Regarding "additions" to the creed, remember the circumstances under which the creed was produced. Initially it was the person of Christ who was under attack by the various heresies and the initial part of the creed was the result. At that stage the person of the Holy Spirit was not in question. However when later heresies arose attacking the third person of the trinity, it became necessary to add the latter part of the creed defending the orthodox belief regarding the Holy Spirit.

There has been a recent addition to the creed (not in the Orthodox Church AFAIK) where the word "death" is added. That is, instead of the words "He suffered and was buried", many have "He suffered death and was buried to counter claims that Jesus merely fainted on the cross (something that was never disputed when the creed was formulated). Now we understand that Jesus would not have been buried were he not dead, but in this age of medical "miracles" and people regaining conciousness after weeks of coma etc. there might be an argument for such an addition. However, any church that teaches that Christ did not die on the cross (are there any besides Moslems?) would probably reject many more parts of the creed, so I don't personally see the need for an addition to cover that particular base.

Well...Not necessarily. It depends on the author. The Roman Catholic Francis Dvornik, in his "Photian Schism" has an entire chapter that discusses the status of the Council (879 AD) wherein Pope St. John VIII and Patriarch St. Photios the Great were reconciled. It seems that there were many in the Church who recognized this as the Eighth Council. In fact, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (signed by Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) 1848 AD enumerates this Council as the "Eighth."

Quote

xi. It [SG -- the filioque] was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

and:

Quote

Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia."

If you want me to post the writings of post-schism Orthodox theologians and saints on this topic, I shall do so upon your request.

PS: It is also worthy of note the very strong terminology this Encyclical (signed by all 4 Patriarchs) uses in its references towards the institution to whom they were addressing this Encyclical. They are quite unambiguous at deeming the filioque a heresy. In my post yesterday, I also forgot to mention the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 (responding to Pope Leo XIII), which seems to reveal Traditional Orthodoxy's opinion about Roman Catholicism in the same vein as the 1848 Encyclical:

Quote

Such are, briefly, the serious and arbitrary innovations concerning the faith and the administrative constitution of the Church, which the Papal Church has introduced and which, it is evident, the Papal Encyclical purposely passes over in silence. These innovations, which have reference to essential points of the faith and of the administrative system of the Church, and which are manifestly opposed to the ecclesiastical condition of the first nine centuries, make the longed-for union of the Churches impossible: and every pious and orthodox heart is filled with inexpressible sorrow on seeing the Papal Church disdainfully persisting in them, and not in the least contributing to the sacred purpose of union by rejecting those heretical innovations and coming back to the ancient condition of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, of which she also at that time formed a part.

These Patriarchal pronouncements do not seem to be out of sync with the Sigillion, the Palamite Council (sometimes referred to as the 9th Ecumenical Council), and the Synods held under Patriarch Gregory of Cyprus. If there have been changes within Orthodoxy regarding its evaluation of Catholicism in the last 80 years, then I would think that these traditional stances and positions would need to be taken into account?

Serge wrote:

Quote

Quote:There is too much of this feel-good/unite-all gumbya garbage going on these days. When will we realize that not all religions are equal, that some are just plain false? The disease of our time is wanting to get along with everyone.

Well, there’s condescending, watered-down liberal ecumenism — like the merging we see of the mainline Prots, the Luthepiscomethoreformunitebyterians — but there’s also the ecumenism of the saints (see quotation from Fr Lev Gillet on my Faith page) and of people of goodwill today. Witness prolife.

Getting along at the expense of truth is the weakness of our Anglo-American culture, particularly the middle class — it’s how many of us were socialized. Charity derailed.

I agree. I firmly believe that we CAN get along and should get along without compromising Truth. Jesus's Parable of the Good Samaritan and His encounter with the Samaritan Woman are good examples of how we should treat anybody--including those whom we deem as heretics/heretical. Loving our neighbor is not an option, it's a mandate. A distinction IMO can/should be drawn between being charitable, kind and amiable with heretics/schismatics versus agreeing with their errors. The same applies in "moral" issues---does it not? The woman caught in adultery -- Jesus forgave and prevented her execution. He did not in any way approve of the sin of adultery. For after that he said "go and sin no more." There's "getting along" and loving our neighbor, and then there's compromise of the Faith and buying into apostasy. The twain should never be mixed.

I'm not sure that Saint Euphemia (July 11) would agree with you on this . Perhaps the terms used by the OOC were not specific enough to exclude misuse by heretics as this was certainly an issue in determining the language of the Nicene Creed and later in condemning the addition of the "Filioque".

The Monophysites falsely affirmed that within Christ was only one nature -- the Divine [i.e. that Jesus is God but not man, by nature], causing discord and unrest within the Church. At the Council were present 630 representatives from all the Local Christian Churches. On the side of the Orthodox in the conciliar deliberations there participated Sainted Anatolios, Patriarch of Constantinople (Comm. 3 July), Sainted Juvenalios, Patriarch of Jerusalem (Comm. 2 July), and representatives of Sainted Leo, Pope of Rome (Comm. 18 February). The Monophysites were present in large numbers, headed by Dioscoros, the Alexandrian patriarch, and the Constantinople archimandrite Eutykhios.

After prolonged discussions the two sides could not come to a decisive agreement.

Firstly, I think that the article is correct in its definition of Monophysitism. But I think it is entirely inaccurate and unfair to call Saint Dioscoros and any other holy fathers of our Orthodox Churches monophysites with the definition of that term already given, and to link Saint Dioscoros with Eutyches. It is clear that the holy fathers of the Oriental Orthodox Churches never believed in monophysitism.

Secondly, I was always under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that Chalcedon was a pretty open and shut council that affirmed that Christ was a divine person in two natures (something which we, while acknowledging its correctness now, think is expressed better using the theology of Saint Cyril). That there was no solution after much debate (as this article seems to say), and that they needed a miracle to affirm one or the other causes me to wonder, since even the devil* can appear as an angel of light and can conceivably animate a dead body, at least temporarily), and a dependence on miracles as proof of something or the other doesn't hold as much weight with me as actually delving into theology and making one's case. The fact that, without the miracle, opinions were divided makes me wonder if both sides really were saying the same thing, but didn't know it.

Thirdly, I don't see what the miracle proves, since we don't affirm the doctrine of Eutyches (which is patently wrong), but of Saint Cyril, which is Orthodox doctrine.

Finally, I am not sure if we venerate Saint Euphemia. It's entirely possible, and I have no reason to think we don't, but it is probably better if one of the Copts on this site weighs in, since I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the saints of our Churches.

*Mind you, I am not saying that the devil caused this; rather, I am saying that it is as possible that a "miraculous" occurence is the work of the devil as it is possible that it is the work of God, and so depending on miracles is not good enough, in my opinion.

P.S. Thanks, Stephen, for the article links. I hope to read them soon.

I remember vaguely that in the mentioned "concelebrations " the Creed recited was said in Greek and in the Orthodox Fomulation of the Creed not the expanded Latin version of the Creed. In this being done, they were united in expression of belief to that point.

The Roman Catholic Church continues to state that there is really no conflict that theirs is the interpolation of the creed and that the official creed for the Roman Catholic Church remains the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed as written in Greek.

The problem is that the latin Church in Rome insists on utilizing their Local" interpolation and interpretation of the the original Greek when they celebrate the Eucharist without the presence of an Orthodox Hierarch. The first step they could make in the direction for unification would be the sole use of the Nicean-Constantinopolitian Creed used throughout Orthodoxy. If they need an accurate translation, I am sure that there are enough Orthdox Churches around the world to provide them with an approved translation into the language of the people.

Thanks for your comments. I have to confess that I am largely ignorant on these issues so I appreciate you providing some commentary on the article you linked to. I confess also that I am a little distressed at how many different versions of the life, and particularly, the death of Saint Euphemia there are. One says she was burnt at stake, another thrown to wild animals, dying after a single bite from a bear, and I think I have read at least one other different account. I have a hard time reconciling these differences. I have seen icons depicting the miracle at Chalcedon though so I don't doubt that it occured.

Do you have any references to the theology of Saint Cyril by any chance? Preferably somewhere on the Internet as I doubt I will be able to find too many books where I live.<edit> Don't worry about that, I'll get off my lazy backside and search myself </edit>

One thing still bothers me though. You give the impression that there is no real difference between what the EOC believe and what the OOC believe, so what exactly was the schism over? A schism definitely did occur and I think it is clear from scripture that such a thing is abhorent to God. If the schism occured over pride (which is how I'm beginning to see things), it is no less a schism and no less abhorent.

John.

<edit> I'm a bit torn on this issue since as a part of the EOC I want my church to be "orthodox" in every way. It tends towards a "we're right so you must be wrong" attitude when in actual fact the blame for this schism appears to lie equally on the shoulders of the EOC and the OOC. I hope to see reconciliation and healing of the church in my lifetime (EO and OO that is. I can't see the RC's shedding their innovations any time soon). </edit>

One thing still bothers me though. You give the impression that there is no real difference between what the EOC believe and what the OOC believe, so what exactly was the schism over? A schism definitely did occur and I think it is clear from scripture that such a thing is abhorent to God. If the schism occured over pride (which is how I'm beginning to see things), it is no less a schism and no less abhorent.

John.

<edit> I'm a bit torn on this issue since as a part of the EOC I want my church to be "orthodox" in every way. It tends towards a "we're right so you must be wrong" attitude when in actual fact the blame for this schism appears to lie equally on the shoulders of the EOC and the OOC. I hope to see reconciliation and healing of the church in my lifetime (EO and OO that is. I can't see the RC's shedding their innovations any time soon). </edit>

Dear John,

Thank you for your reply.

Is there a difference between what the EOC and the OOC believe? Yes and no. You teach two natures, we teach one incarnate nature, so there is a difference. Is the difference substantial? Do we teach two essentially different things? Is the Christ you preach different from the Christ we preach? No! It is the same teaching, using different expressions, but affirming the same faith.

After taking a church history class here at the university, and reading the books that were assigned and what not, I've come to think that the schism after Chalcedon was based on politics and pride, disguised in theological diversity. Of course, this is an extremely stupid reason for a schism, but it happened. It is not for us to concern ourselves with who was more at fault, who was more right (we are both Orthodox), etc. We are brothers and sisters, and it is our job to become one family again.

Basically, if I'm not mistaken, you teach that Christ is a divine Person "in" two natures, but that these natures are full, distinct, unconfused, etc., but they are united in one Person.

What we say is that in Christ, there is one nature, but that one nature is an "incarnate" nature. By qualifying it that way, we necessarily state that there are divine and human natures at work here, each is full, distinct, etc., and in being united in one incarnate nature, there is no confusion or alteration, but there is one incarnate nature, not simply two natures, and not simply one nature.

I probably botched that up, but if you go to http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ you will find a bunch of articles and what not that will explain these things better.

A nice little passage from someone who could hardly be called a "traditionalist"...

Quote

Virtually all Orthodox Churches permit what is termed 'economic' intercommunion, whereby non-Orthodox Christians, when cut off from the ministrations of their own Church, may be allowed--with special permission--to receive communion from an Orthodox priest. But does the reverse hold true? Can isolated Orthodox, with no parish of their own near at hand--and this is frequently the situation in the west--approach non-Orthodox for communion? Most Orthodox authorities answer: no, this is not possible. But in fact it happens, in some instances with the tacit or even explicit blessing of an Orthodox bishop."- Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, (Penguin books, 1993), p. 311

Astonishingly enough, His Grace admits that almost all Orthodox Churches allow for "economic" intercommunion; that is, that they occasionally permit non-Orthodox—for example, a Methodist in Bulgaria—, who have no access to clergy of their own church, to receive communion from an Orthodox Priest. We say "astonishingly," because when we anti-ecumenist Old Calendarists point out such abuses, we are denounced as liars and slanderers, whereas ecumenists, like Bishop Kallistos, are praised for their candor and courage when they make such remarks. This demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of Orthodox ecumenism.

At St. Vladimir's, we are most definitively taught that Roman Catholics are *not* heretics. Their beliefs do not fit into the category of Trinity or Incarnation denying. They are in error on several issues but NOT at the level of say the Arians. We are taught that there are degrees of separation from the Church, and a Roman Catholic is definitely closer to Orthodoxy than a Voodooist! However, we *are* taught that Roman Catholics are in error to the extent that there can be no eucharistic concelebration or sharing of mysteries.

The word "heresy" refers to a "difference of opinion"; in the Christian context, this would mean over some doctrinal matter (namely, a "heretical teaching" would be a teaching opposed to, or a perversion of, the Christian faith.) While one can appraise some heresies as being less drastic than others, one does not need to be an Arian or a Nestorian to be a "heretic."

If what you say is in fact what you're being taught at St.Vladimirs, it's both surprising and troubling.

Quote

I noted upon doing more research that St. Mark of Ephesus called Roman Catholics not only schismatics but heretics, so I can see by his time he was thinking more in line with your thoughts. I still maintain that it would be better to return to the apostolic use of the terms "heretic" "scismatic" and "unlawful assembly".

So the key "papal" dogmas of the First Vatican Council are not "heretical"? What exactly are they?

Serge

Quote

The pope and the patriarch of Constantinople took the first part of a Mass (readings, intercessions) together in St Peter’s Basilica in 1995 but did not concelebrate the Eucharist.

The "first part of the Mass" is part of the Latin liturgy of the Eucharist - if that doesn't qualify as co-liturgizing, what does? If "liturgizing" is not included in proscriptions in the canons against praying with heretics, what is?

Hypo-Ortho

Serge<<The pope and the patriarch of Constantinople took the first part of a Mass (readings, intercessions) together in St Peter’s Basilica in 1995 but did not concelebrate the Eucharist.>>

Seraphim Reeves<<The "first part of the Mass" is part of the Latin liturgy of the Eucharist - if that doesn't qualify as co-liturgizing, what does? If "liturgizing" is not included in proscriptions in the canons against praying with heretics, what is?>>

Seraphim, I follow your logic here more than I do Serge's. Serge seems to be nitpicking to offer a disclaimer that there was no co-liturgizing or concelebration. If one concelebrates part of the Mass, which is the official Eucharistic service of the Roman Catholic Church, one may as well follow through and concelebrate the whole thing because it looks as if, at least to me, that that is what the Ecumenical Patriarch intends to do eventually anyway.

Yesterday on the Julian Calendar:

Troparion of St Photios the Great Tone 5

As a radiant beacon of wisdom hidden in God,/ and a defender of Orthodoxy revealed from on high,/ O great Photios, adornment of Patriarchs,/ thou dost refute the innovations of boastful heresy,/ O light of the holy Church,/ preserve her from all error,/ O luminary of the East.

Kontakion of St Photios the Great Tone 8

With garlands of chant let us crown the Church's far-shining star,/ the God-inspired guide of the Orthodox, the divinely sounded harp of the Spirit and steadfast adversary of heresy/ and let us cry to him: Rejoice, O most venerable Photios.

<<<The word "heresy" refers to a "difference of opinion"; in the Christian context, this would mean over some doctrinal matter (namely, a "heretical teaching" would be a teaching opposed to, or a perversion of, the Christian faith.) While one can appraise some heresies as being less drastic than others, one does not need to be an Arian or a Nestorian to be a "heretic."

If what you say is in fact what you're being taught at St.Vladimirs, it's both surprising and troubling.>>>

The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling. What's your basis for facts? The internet? Works of Frank Shaeffer, Clark Carlton, and Michael Whelton?

Certainly the Orthodox would hold that the Vatican I doctrines are errors or even heresy but would not then conclude that individual Roman Catholics are heretics.

The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling.

That could easily be turned right around to say how toubling it is to disregard the teachings of the saints (especially Saint Mark of Ephesos) concerning the current status of Old Rome. To NOT find both Vatican I and Vatican II heretical is indeed very troubling. Yes, new converts like myself are obnoxious, judgemental, etc. but those of us who were RCC and have come to love Orthodoxy never want to see her infected with the ills of Old Rome.

Logged

Hypo-Ortho

anastasios Quote:The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling.>>

anastasios, my friend, what goes on in academia at the hypothetical level is not always what is lived or believed at the parish level or even ever filtered down "to the laos." Even seminary professors can be wrong--they're certainly not infallible. In Holy Orthodoxy, we're all equal: whether "cradle" Orthodox or newly-Chrismated adult convert, the same Holy Spirit is received in Chrismation.

The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling.

That could easily be turned right around to say how toubling it is to disregard the teachings of the saints (especially Saint Mark of Ephesos) concerning the current status of Old Rome. To NOT find both Vatican I and Vatican II heretical is indeed very troubling. Yes, new converts like myself are obnoxious, judgemental, etc. but those of us who were RCC and have come to love Orthodoxy never want to see her infected with the ills of Old Rome.

First off, as I said, certainly the folks at St. Vladimir's find Vatican I's teachings on the pope to be wrong, and the word "heretical" might be employed. But like I said before, that doesn't mean they consider Roman Catholics as individuals to be heretics.

As far as "disregarding the teachings of the saints." First of all, my whole argument is that Orthodoxy is organic and passed down in an ecclesial community (ie The Church). Those who pray, fast, and witness Christianity are the ones who best understand the truths of Orthodoxy, not those who read about it and theorize about it. Since I know for a fact that the professors at St. Vladimir's are dedicated Orthodox Christians who worship regularly, pray, and fast, and are humble in their approach to dogmatic questions, I trust their understanding of the Fathers *taken as a whole*. Now when you say it's wrong to disregard the teachings of the saints, I would agree, but let's not turn this into "Saint quotation infallibility." Saints can be wrong on individual matters, or they can be speaking from a particular historical experience thus speaking an opinion, not handing down the tradition of the Church. On some occasions, the saints didn't even understand what the Latins taught in the first place, but spoke from second-hand information.

We need to let the Fathers inform our cosciences but since we are the People of God, in communion with him and living in the Holy Spirit, we have liberties in our particular age to respond to the situation that we find--which is radically different than the situation St. Mark of Ephesus experienced, for example.

What I'm NOT saying is that the quotes of the Fathers are irrelavent; what I AM saying is that we need to take the Fathers in context, let them inform our beliefs, yet allow the Holy Spirit to move us where He wants.

<<<anastasios, my friend, what goes on in academia at the hypothetical level is not always what is lived or believed at the parish level or even ever filtered down "to the laos." Even seminary professors can be wrong--they're certainly not infallible. In Holy Orthodoxy, we're all equal: whether "cradle" Orthodox or newly-Chrismated adult convert, the same Holy Spirit is received in Chrismation.>>>

You are so right that what goes on in ACADEMIA "at the hypothetical level" is not what's always believed, etc.

That's why I'm glad that an Orthodox Seminary is neither a) purely ACADEMIA (it is a following of academic pursuits within the context of the received Tradition of the Church) and b) why I added that the professors at St. Vladimir's pray, fast, attend liturgy, and humbly reflect on God. My emphasis is that St. Vladimir's is not a bunch of people sitting around thinking up hypothetical situations and being pompous with human knowledge as some would like to make it out.

As far as being different from the parish level, yes, that is true, and yes, we are all equally the People of God. Yet I have two things to add to that: first, there is a constant sharing between the actual priests and laypeople of the Church with the St. Vladimir's community (frequent visits, lectures by laypeople, events, conferences, and guest courses sponsored by "outsiders" which helps keep the seminary fresh) and secondly, many times there is a difference between what the people think in the parish is Orthodoxy and what Orthodoxy actually is. For instance, people have the notion that Orthodoxy teaches you can't have more than one liturgy on one altar on one day. That is just simply false. For instance, on Pascha there are two liturgies--the Vesperal Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The Orthodox teaching is that there cannot be two Eucharists splitting up one community, because the Eucharist makes the Church. But if the community is fully assembled (and undivided) then two liturgies can be celebrated (such as on Pascha) because it is the same Eucharist for the same community. That's just one small example.

Of course I am not saying that a) when there is a dispute between Seminary and "actual practice" that I always side with the Seminary position (I don't always, although usually I do) and that b) laypeople are a bunch of undeducated people that need to be told what to do. Certainly the laity plays a major role in the Church. And yes, there are some who it seems look down at the "average Joe" and I would call this a false academic (a snob, for example). Yet what I am saying is that the people at St. Vlad's are not academic snobs sitting around theorizing, but rather active, loyal, faithful, practicing Orthodox Christians who have participated in the "real world" and who reflect on the Church and issues facing it in a real way.

I am sorry for my superlongwindedness, and I might have confused some more than offering answers. If that's so, I apologize and please feel free to follow up or challenge my line of thinking. I'll probably reread this post tomorrow and want to rewrite some passages.

I was upset because the assumption is held by many that "seminary professors are ecumenists who are thinking with their rational minds and not experiencing God the correct way by spiritual growth, etc."

I want to defend seminary professors without snubbing the laity, because sometimes you meet academics who think they know everything.

Both are extremes. We agree, Hypo, that both groups are equally important and that neither is infallible.

I'm just trying to debunk the idea that seminary professors are somehow removed from "real Orthodoxy" and that when they come up with reflections that are different than what some think is the "Only Orthodox way" they are "obviously wrong, ignoring the Fathers, and ecumenists."

As far as "disregarding the teachings of the saints." First of all, my whole argument is that Orthodoxy is organic and passed down in an ecclesial community (ie The Church). Those who pray, fast, and witness Christianity are the ones who best understand the truths of Orthodoxy, not those who read about it and theorize about it. Since I know for a fact that the professors at St. Vladimir's are dedicated Orthodox Christians who worship regularly, pray, and fast, and are humble in their approach to dogmatic questions, I trust their understanding of the Fathers *taken as a whole*. Now when you say it's wrong to disregard the teachings of the saints, I would agree, but let's not turn this into "Saint quotation infallibility." Saints can be wrong on individual matters, or they can be speaking from a particular historical experience thus speaking an opinion, not handing down the tradition of the Church. On some occasions, the saints didn't even understand what the Latins taught in the first place, but spoke from second-hand information.

I did not intend to prooftext quotations from Saints to make my point (I agree with you that is wrong). My GOA priest and spiritual father lives Orthodoxy as do the other people in my parish that I know; they all feel that the Latins are in heresy over their novel doctrines. The people who live Orthodoxy more than anybody else that I have ever seen is the monks of Saint Anthony's (Yes, the Elder Ephraim monastery in AZ), and they believe the Latins to be heretical. As for the witness of the saints, I think it is of some importance that are are numerous saints who have fought the Latin heresy (even some martyrs). It is ironic one of the greatest condemnations of the modern Papacy was written by Pope Saint Gregory the Great. I also think the witness of the Holy Mountain is important to consider on this matter. There are also many documents signed by a long list of bishops and patriarchs (who I assume lived Orthodoxy) to consider. So please consider the above people before you pass judgement on all who think the Latins are heretical as not living an Orthodox life. I do not live an Orthodox life; I am the 'angry convert' (or whatever the going term is for us)...but the people I listed abover are not and are truly Orthodox.

But is a person a heretic if they do not know that what they believe and hold to be true is a heresy?

That is the question. And, in my humble opinion, while one can hold that a particular position is heretical, and those who formally accept that position while knowing the orthodox position and rejecting it are heretics, I don't think one can carry this to the next level and say that Latins are heretics and that's that. For most Latins today believe that what they believe is the truth, and is no heresy, but orthodox faith. Hence, in one sense we could say they believe heretical doctrines, but I don't think we could say Sister Mary Ignatius, Mons. Ted Graham, or any other Catholic was a heretic, because in most cases they have been raised to believe that their position is the truth, and, if I'm not mistaken, in order to be a heretic, you have to choose to reject the true faith. If you think that what you've been raised with is the true faith, then what? Such a person is not guilty of heresy, and so is not a heretic, even though they may believe a heretical teaching.

Hypo-Ortho

I think it's just so much easier, Mor, for us Orthodox to be AGAINST something, e.g., heresy (and we "should" be against heresy, btw, as Scripture teaches) than actively and forcefully to be FOR something, e.g., Pro-Life, chastity, fasting, prayer, almsgiving, Truth. And while we should not label the average RC as a heretic and blast him/her as such (it's just not PC and ecumenist to do that!), the same cannot be said of the Pope and his minions, who should know better and yet continue to perpetuate heretical beliefs among their adherents.

But is a person a heretic if they do not know that what they believe and hold to be true is a heresy?

Then there are very few if ANY heretics. All the great herisarchs probably thought what they taught was true (giving them the benifit of the doutb), ergo they weren't heretics (which would be ridiculous to say!). It is not our bussiness to judge anybody on the grassroots level, but it is very important to pass judgement on the system as heretical. Yes there are many well-intentioned Latins, but does that make the filioque, Vatican I etc. any less heretical? Should we not speak the truth about Islam simply because there are millions who have no choice but Islam or execution in thier countries?

Then there are very few if ANY heretics. All the great herisarchs probably thought what they taught was true (giving them the benifit of the doutb), ergo they weren't heretics (which would be ridiculous to say!).

Yes, but what I mean to say is that there is a difference between a Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Joe Aloysius Schmoe. It is sorta like Hypo's point:

And while we should not label the average RC as a heretic and blast him/her as such (it's just not PC and ecumenist to do that!), the same cannot be said of the Pope and his minions, who should know better and yet continue to perpetuate heretical beliefs among their adherents.

It is not our bussiness to judge anybody on the grassroots level, but it is very important to pass judgement on the system as heretical. Yes there are many well-intentioned Latins, but does that make the filioque, Vatican I etc. any less heretical? Should we not speak the truth about Islam simply because there are millions who have no choice but Islam or execution in thier countries?

I am in agreement with this. I'm sorry if my post gave a contrary impression. Judge the system, but not the people.

The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling. What's your basis for facts? The internet? Works of Frank Shaeffer, Clark Carlton, and Michael Whelton?

While arguments from authority are the weakest of arguments (in this case, you see St.Vlad's as an "authority"), at least they are still arguments. Ad hominem "arguments" however, are only such in name.

Quote

Certainly the Orthodox would hold that the Vatican I doctrines are errors or even heresy but would not then conclude that individual Roman Catholics are heretics.

So the unfortunates who were born and raised into Arian clans in ancient Germania (due to the missionary activities of the Arians who fled from east to west), were not "heretics"? Granted, I'm willing to conceed the difference between a "heretic" and a "heresiarch" (which seems to be confused in this conversation; the latter term is all but ignored, the former made to take it's place, with a vacuum left behind for those who materially hold to the errors or their seperated communion.) Even between formal adherance to an error (with varying levels of culpability), or material heresy.

But the fact remains, if one adheres to a heresy, they are a heretic (even if one wishes to say this is only materially so, and speculate that this is an error made out of good faith.) There is nothing passionate or upset about this appraisal; the very word "heretic" refers to one holding a different opinion - in this case, a different belief than that taught and preserved in the Orthodox Church.

"errors or even heresy"... so you're not sure whether the Pope as having immediate and universal authority over each Christian on the face of the planet, and in fact being personally infallible (despite attempts to water this down since Vatican II with talk of collegiality) in certain circumstances, are not in fact "heresies"? If these do not qualify as ecclessiological heresies, one has to wonder what would?

The fact that a recent convert like you presumes to tell the dedicated, prayerfull, active, and practicing lifelong Orthodox Christians at St. Vladimir's that they are wrong without considering the full context and historical precedent for what they are teaching is what is troubling. What's your basis for facts? The internet? Works of Frank Shaeffer, Clark Carlton, and Michael Whelton?

While arguments from authority are the weakest of arguments (in this case, you see St.Vlad's as an "authority"), at least they are still arguments. Ad hominem "arguments" however, are only such in name.

Dear Seraphim,

I appreciate your attempt to be conciliatory but will argue that I was not arguing ad hominem. I belive that one's personal experiences heavily impact their religious views. When we talk about Orthodoxy, we talk about experience as well; that was the whole point of my critique of you; the people at St. Vladimir's live Orthodoxy daily and have done so since its foundation in 1938; this is a living Orthodox community. You (and me both) are recent on the scene.

As far as an argument from authority, I wonder whence you dervive the statement "arguments from authority are weak." Perhaps in a political context, but in the Church we believe in the authority of the bishops. Of course we also believe in the laos (people of God) but many of the educated people of God fully support St. Vladimir's and its presentation of the Orthodox faith.

If an Arian in Germany didn't know that Arianism isn't wrong, and he was a born member of that Church, he is not a heretic. He is simply in error. Latins distinguish between material and formal heretics, the former being someone who believes the wrong thing and the later being someone who professes it. I believe the distinction is valid despite its source.

When we talk about Orthodoxy, we talk about experience as well; that was the whole point of my critique of you; the people at St. Vladimir's live Orthodoxy daily and have done so since its foundation in 1938; this is a living Orthodox community

The ad hominem is the implication that whoever disaggrees with the Seminary is wrong and not living an Orthodox life. My point when I posted on the matter a few days ago is the people that I [personally] have seen that live the most Orthodox lives are all against Orthodox and Catholic ecumenism. You no right whatsoever to even imply that the vast number of Orthodox who reject ecumenism are not "living an Orthodox life." If you want a well established Orthodox Community, look towards the Holy Mountain and their viewpoints on Latins being heretics. If the Latins are not heretics then the Orthodox were wrong are both Lyons and Florence (and for that matter wrong to this day). One can't have it both ways.

When we talk about Orthodoxy, we talk about experience as well; that was the whole point of my critique of you; the people at St. Vladimir's live Orthodoxy daily and have done so since its foundation in 1938; this is a living Orthodox community

The ad hominem is the implication that whoever disaggrees with the Seminary is wrong and not living an Orthodox life. My point when I posted on the matter a few days ago is the people that I [personally] have seen that live the most Orthodox lives are all against Orthodox and Catholic ecumenism. You no right whatsoever to even imply that the vast number of Orthodox who reject ecumenism are not "living an Orthodox life." If you want a well established Orthodox Community, look towards the Holy Mountain and their viewpoints on Latins being heretics. If the Latins are not heretics then the Orthodox were wrong are both Lyons and Florence (and for that matter wrong to this day). One can't have it both ways.

Whatever man. I am on the defensive not the offensive. The implication was NOT that to disagree with St. Vladimir's means you're wrong, it was that St. Valdimir's is a fully Orthodox place--I was defending that! If people disagree with St. Vladimir's then fine, that's okay (and it should be noted that at St. Vladimir's this stuff is debated even among the faculty). I can live with that; what I can't live with is ignorant people claiming that St. Vladimir's isn't Orthodox. THAT was my whole point. You and Seraphim are trying to turn this into me saying that those who disagree with St. Vladimir's are not Orthodox--but I never said that and I don't believe it.

As far as your claim that I implied that those who are against ecumenism are not living an Orthodox life--that is just plain stupid because I didn't say that either. The only implication that I made was again a DEFENSE of St. Vladimir's faculty as highly Orthodox. Do I think Mt. Athos people are not holy? No. Do I think that ecumenism-rejectors are not holy? No. Didn't say that, didn't imply that.

Stop reading between the lines. All I did was defend St. Vlad's against attack. You are trying to turn this into a statement by me that to not be an ecumenist does not make one holy. For the record I don't believe that. I don't think ecumenism has anything to do with the degree that someone is living an Orthodox life; I think it is an issue which has not been dogmatically defined and which good people can disagree about.

As far as an argument from authority, I wonder whence you dervive the statement "arguments from authority are weak." Perhaps in a political context, but in the Church we believe in the authority of the bishops. Of course we also believe in the laos (people of God) but many of the educated people of God fully support St. Vladimir's and its presentation of the Orthodox faith.

Arguments from authority are not necessarily "weak", simply "the weakest." Paradoxically, however, if the "authority" involved is sufficient, they can be anything but "weak" arguments. For example, if the authority is God, then it is a very strong argument (even if the logic involved is not apparent.)

However, it is not clear here that the proffessors of St.Vladimir are speaking with an authority greater than themselves. It's certainly not been established that the views that you asbcribe to them, are rooted in the tradition of the Church (whether it be the services, Fathers, or the Holy Scriptures.) Thus, in a case like this, simply citing "their" authority is a wasted excercise (and thus why in logic, arguments from authority are generally the "weakest" arguments.)

Quote

If an Arian in Germany didn't know that Arianism isn't wrong, and he was a born member of that Church, he is not a heretic. He is simply in error. Latins distinguish between material and formal heretics, the former being someone who believes the wrong thing and the later being someone who professes it. I believe the distinction is valid despite its source.

In that case, there are practically no heretics to speak of (and never have been) since even heresairchs (instigators of heresy) are usually quite convinced that they are correct.

If you had read my earlier response carefully, you would have noted that it was I who made the very distinction you bring up (entertaining the notion of there being a difference between "formal" and "material" heresy), as well as mentioning possible culpability. However, that still leaves the party involved a "heretic". It seems to me that the real problem is that the term "heretic" is perceived as being uncouth, so the ecumenically inclined don't want to use it (even if it fits the bill.)

If you want to cite the Latin distinction between "formal" and "material" heretic, you have a problem; since a "material heretic" is still a heretic in old school Latin thought (thus why, before the Vatican started subscribing to ecumenism, RC moralists and theologians definatly considered Lutherans, Presbysterians, etc., to be heretics.)